Jenert Studienprogrammentwicklung

Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung ZFHE Jg.9 / Nr.2 (März 2014)
www.zfhe.at Scientific paper 1
Tobias JENERT1
(St.Gallen)
Implementing Outcome-Oriented Study
Programmes at University: The Challenge of
Academic Culture
Abstract
In recent years, the design of study programmes in Higher Education (HE) has
been given considerable attention by HE practitioners and researchers. Today, a
sound body of concepts and experiences on different realisations of Bologna-
conforming study programmes is available. The same, however, does not hold true
for questions concerning the processes of implementing and further developing
programmes. This paper investigates the challenges related with implementation,
particularly at universities. A first aim is to understand the specifics of academic
culture and their significance for programme implementation and development.
Elaborating on this analysis, a second aim is to outline the role of educational
developers in this process, as well as the necessary competencies to perform such
a role.
Keywords
programme development, disciplinary culture, curriculum development, educational
development
Studienprogramme an Universitäten Outcome-orientiert
gestalten: Herausforderungen akademischer Kulturen
Zusammenfassung
In den letzten Jahren hat die Gestaltung von Studienprogrammen an Hochschulen
verstärkte Aufmerksamkeit erfahren. Mittlerweile ist daher eine Vielzahl von
konzeptionellen Beiträgen sowie Praxisberichten zur Planung Bologna-konformer
Programme verfügbar. Gleiches gilt jedoch nicht für die Implementation sowie die
kontinuierliche Weiterentwicklung von Studienprogrammen. Der Beitrag setzt sich
mit Herausforderungen der Implementation, speziell im akademischen Kontext von
Universitäten auseinander. Ein erstes Ziel besteht darin, die Besonderheiten
akademischer Kulturen und deren Bedeutung für die Implementation und
Weiterentwicklung Outcome-orientierter Programme herauszuarbeiten. Ausgehend
von dieser Analyse stellt der Beitrag zweitens Rollen, Aufgaben und Kompetenzen
der pädagogischen Hochschulentwicklung dar, die notwendig sind, um solche
Prozesse erfolgreich zu bewältigen.
1
E-Mail: tobias.jenert@unisg.ch

Tobias Jenert ZFHE Jg.9 / Nr.2 (März 2014) S. 1-12
Schlüsselwörter
Programmentwicklung, Curriculumentwicklung, diziplinäre Kultur, Fachkultur,
pädagogische Hochschulentwicklung
1 From designing curricula to developing
study programmes
In recent years, the design of study programmes in Higher Education has been giv-
en considerable attention both by practitioners and researchers dealing with teach-
ing and learning in Higher Education Institutions (HEI). In the (continental) Euro-
pean context, this expansion of the design focus from courses to larger units of
studying such as modules and study programmes is tightly linked to discourses
around the implementation of Bologna-conforming study structures in HEI. There-
fore, during the last decade, a considerable number of scholarly publications, poli-
cy papers and practitioner reports have dealt with questions concerning the defini-
tion of learning outcomes (often in the form of competencies), modules, and credit
point systems (KELLER, 2006; MARIAN, 2007; SCHAPER, SCHLÖMER, &
PAECHTER, 2013; WEBLER, 2005). In combination with research on modular-
ized curricula and curriculum development conducted in the Anglo-American con-
text, this leads to a sound body of concepts and experiences on different structural
realisations of Bologna-conforming study programmes (BETTS, & SMITH, 1995;
BURKE, 1995; JENKINS, & WALKER, 1994).
The same, however, does not hold true for questions concerning the processes of
implementing and further developing study programmes at HEI. Often, curricular
reforms within study programmes remain on the level of structural changes instead
of sustainably influencing the teaching and studying practices in a way that sup-
ports the attainment of underlying educational goals (BRAHM, & JENERT, 2013;
HUBBAL, & BURT, 2004). To actually yield educational effects, however, nor-
mative concepts such as problem orientation or deep-level learning need to become
enacted through the faculty’s and the students’ practices of teaching and studying
(HU, & KUH, 2002; JENERT, 2011, 2012b; KUH, KINZIE, SCHUH, WHITT et
al., 2005). Experiences from the US context show that despite long-established
traditions in continuous quality development of study programmes, initiatives often
fail to permeate the practices of students and faculty (HARPER, & LATTUCA,
2010).
This paper investigates the challenges for the sustainable implementation and fur-
ther development of study programmes in HEI in general and at universities in
particular. Starting with an analysis of the characteristics of HEI as the organiza-
tional frame, a first aim is to understand the specifics of academic culture and what
they mean for programme implementation and development. Elaborating on this
analysis, a second aim is to outline the role of educational developers in the process
of programme implementation and development, as well as the necessary compe-
tencies to perform such a role. Therefore, the article is structured along the follow-
ing questions:

(1) Which challenges for the sustainable implementation and further develop-
ment of study programmes arise from the organizational characteristics of
HEI in general and academic culture in particular?
(2) Which roles should educational developers fulfil in order to support the
sustainable implementation and development of study programmes?
The article unfolds around the core argument that the characteristics of academic
culture(s) at HEI and at universities in particular need to be carefully considered
when implementing study programmes in order to change the teaching and learning
culture.
2 Setting the scene: Current concepts for
“innovative” teaching and learning in HEI
The scholarly discussion on how to shape the future of teaching and learning in
Higher Education (HE) can be roughly outlined as a “Shift from Teaching to
Learning“ (BARR, & TAGG, 1995). In order to accomplish such a shift, changes
on different levels of within HEI are necessary (JENERT, ZELLWEGER,
DOMMEN, & GEBHARDT, 2009). Teaching and learning methods on the course
level as well as individual faculty’s teaching competencies have been the subject of
educational development for decades. In the wake of the Bologna reforms the level
of study programmes has been attributed growing attention by educational devel-
opers, especially in German speaking countries. Where HE curricula had previous-
ly been designed by compiling various “junks” of knowledge provided by the con-
tributing disciplines (and often remain to be so), “shifted” HE programmes set out
by defining intended learning outcomes for students. Programmes structures as
well as teaching and learning processes are then planned in a way that students are
enabled to achieve these aspired outcomes.
Acting as an umbrella term, the “Shift from Teaching to Learning” is connoted
with several other concepts guiding the discussion on HE: Learning Outcomes are
supposed to go beyond reproducing factual knowledge. Rather, study programmes
should aim at developing competencies, i. e. students’ skills and attitudes in addi-
tion to knowledge (SCHAPER et al., 2013). To achieve such high-stakes outcomes,
teaching needs to become more student-oriented, i. e. use insights about student
learning processes in order to support deep-level learning (ENTWISTLE,
MCCUNE, & SCHEJA, 2006). Thus, effective programme design should aim for a
(constructive) alignment between (high-stakes) learning outcomes as goals, study
structures and teaching and learning processes and, ultimately, assessment proce-
dures for determining to which degree the intended outcomes have been achieved
(BIGGS, 2003).
So when there are such elaborate concepts for planning study programmes, why is
it challenging to implement and manage them in a way that realizes the intended
quality of education? The following section will discuss challenges for the sustain-
able implementation and further development of study programmes that arise from
the organizational characteristics of HEI in general and the specifics of academic
contexts in particular.

3 Challenges for implementing outcome-
oriented study programmes at university
3.1 The hard task of developing study programmes
Regarding the scholarly literature on programme design in Higher Education, only
a small number of publications tackle the actual implementation, the management,
and further development of study programmes. From the few reports available, it
becomes evident that especially in university contexts, to influence the actual
teaching and learning practices and not just change study structures is extremely
challenging. For example, HARPER, & LATTUCA (2010) report that faculty re-
sisted the incorporation of principles of continuous quality improvement which
were aimed at improving curricular cohesion. HUBALL et al. (2007 ) discuss the
challenge of integrating new learning outcomes into study programmes and, most
importantly, get faculty to assume responsibility for achieving those outcomes.
Presenting a case study, BRAHM, & JENERT (2013) show that even when work-
ing with a faculty that is strongly committed to their study programme, presenting
pedagogical models like a competency framework turned out rather impractical. In
the reported case, the idea of transmitting pieces of subject-related knowledge was
so prevalent that introducing a competency-based model of intended learning out-
comes proved to be extremely challenging. Furthermore, in a comparative study of
four university programmes, JENERT (2011) concludes that both students and
faculty perceived the progress of the studies as an addition of independent building
blocks, i. e. courses with quite a low degree of cohesion and interdependence. Lit-
tle communication among faculty as well as a low sense of responsibility for con-
tributing to programme-level learning outcomes have been identified as primary
causes for these observations.
The next section analyses universities as institutional contexts for implementing
outcome-oriented study programmes. A reflection on the characteristics of univer-
sities and in particular academics as university teachers will provide a clearer pic-
ture of what stands behind the specific challenges for educational developers work-
ing on study programmes.
3.2 The academia as a challenging context for implementing
outcome oriented study programmes
One of the major characteristics of universities as organizations is that their aca-
demic members, making up most of the teaching faculty, face an institutional dou-
ble-bind: As researchers they are part of an academic discipline, each forming one
or several scientific communities. For an academic, professional success is closely
linked to being recognized in one’s scientific community(-ies), publishing in
acknowledged journals or books, attending conferences etc. Thus, an important
part of an academic’s career development happens within his/her “academic tribe”
(BECHER, & TROWLER, 2001) which in most cases is not immediately connect-
ed to the home university. Usually, disciplinary connections stay intact throughout
an academic’s professional life while organisational affiliations will change several

times. For most academics changing organizations is even obligatory in order to
get a tenured position. For this reason, academics have been described as being
more loyal to their discipline than to their organisation (WEICK, 1976), especially
in German-speaking countries where universities do not tend to have strong organ-
izational identities (KRECKEL, 2006; MITTELSTRASS, 1991).
Academic disciplines have been characterised as individual cultures, featuring their
specific bodies of knowledge, rules for doing research and – most importantly for
HE – typical modalities for teaching (LIEBAU, & HUBER, 1985). The differences
between disciplinary cultures can be huge, ranging from differing research practic-
es to conflicting paradigms resulting in radically opposing worldviews. Education
at a university has often been regarded as an introduction to an academic discipline
(LIEBAU, & HUBER, 1985; MULTRUS, 2005). Scholars have investigated and
compared different academic subjects (BARGEL, 1988; LIEBAU, & HUBER,
1985) regarding university studies as a process of being socialized into the respec-
tive disciplinary culture and developing its distinctive Habitus (BOURDIEU, &
PASSERON, 1971; FRANK, 1990).
The important role of academic disciplines/subjects in HE needs to be thoroughly
considered to understand the causes underlying the abovementioned challenges for
developing study programmes. As a result of their strong disciplinary affiliation,
university faculty tend to conceptualize teaching from the perspective of their own
research discipline (HUBER, & PORTELE, 1983). Disciplinary socialisation does
not only mean to familiarise students with the central bodies of knowledge and
scientific practices. Rather, discipline-related Habitus comprises a whole
worldview including aspects of everyday life such as political and cultural prefer-
ences, clothing styles etc. (BARGEL, 1988). Thus, acknowledging disciplinary
socialisation as a main characteristic of HE means to accept that the academic dis-
cipline has a strong influence on how teaching and learning are conceived by aca-
demics (LIEBAU, & HUBER, 1985). Considering the complex institutional con-
stellation of academic faculty – caught between disciplinary and institutional affili-
ation as well as between their roles as researchers and teachers – helps to better
understand why implementing outcome-oriented study programmes is so challeng-
ing.
Designing curricula towards a portfolio of (intended) programme-level outcomes
means a conceptual relocation of the role of academic disciplines and, consequent-
ly of each faculty member’s position as a teacher: The discipline-focused view on
HE regards teaching as a way of familiarizing students with one’s discipline. In
other words, teaching is a way of presenting one’s discipline to an audience of
potential academics-to-be (even if this might become true only for a fraction of the
student body). In contrast, the outcome-oriented approach to HE puts individual
courses as well as and the faculty’s disciplines in a much more functional position.
Instead of representing a glimpse of a disciplinary culture, courses are to provide a
clear contribution to the attainment of the programme-level outcomes. As a conse-
quence, faculty should select their course contents as well as their teaching and
learning methods accordingly. Furthermore, developing outcome-oriented curricula
requires faculty to synchronize and sequence their courses among each other in a
way that supports outcome attainment.

At a first glance, all this may appear to be purely operational problems that can be
overcome by implementing adequate processes for developing courses well-aligned
to each other as well as to programme-level outcomes. Keeping in mind the im-
portant role of disciplinary affiliation for academics, however, it becomes obvious
that adjusting one’s teaching to programme-level outcomes can imply huge com-
promises and irritation. In fact, aligning a course systematically with programme-
level outcomes as well as with other courses in the curriculum may require faculty
to deviate from the “natural” sequence of knowledge as it is usually provided with-
in his/her discipline.
For illustration, we may assume the example of a psychologist offering an elective
course within a master’s programme on strategic management. Hitherto, the course
had been designed as a typical introduction to organizational psychology compris-
ing a selection of basic theories generally assumed to be basic knowledge for be-
ginners in the discipline. Concerning the course plan, this already provided a clear
structure following the established organization of knowledge within the profes-
sor’s area of research. Now this professor gets involved in a redesign of the pro-
gramme and is asked to adapt his/her course both in content and in methods in
order to contribute better to the major competencies necessary for strategic manag-
ers in corporate and public organizations. The programme manager asks to modify
the course in a way that students are able to “analyse typical management problems
from an organizational psychology point of view, contrasting the perspective pro-
vided by management studies and using case-based teaching for example”. Our
professor’s first reaction may be to object this request as so far these students know
nothing about organizational psychology so how could they solve real-life prob-
lems? If he/she takes the challenge seriously, however, this professor needs to un-
derstand (a) challenges managers meet in their work life, (b) how management
studies as a discipline approaches such challenges and (c) how organizational psy-
chology might contribute complementary or alternative perspectives. Some of the
programme-level objectives themselves, being defined in the field of management
studies may even conflict with basic assumptions of organizational psychology and
thus lead our professor to object even more strongly. As a consequence, engaging
in the process of redesigning the study programme, he/she is not only required to
reflect his/her teaching beyond the limits of his/her own research area; ultimately,
he/she might even be requested to subordinate the teaching-related habits of his/her
own discipline to the needs of another subject area (in this case strategic manage-
ment).
This short example highlights that for academic faculty moving from a discipline-
centred to an outcome-oriented mode of teaching in study programmes is a chal-
lenge that goes beyond a mere change of teaching and learning methods. Rather, to
really align one’s teaching to programme-level learning outcomes means to reflect
and challenge the (often implicit) teaching-related assumptions of one’s discipli-
nary culture and to discuss such assumptions with other faculty members. In prac-
tice, such discussions about learning outcomes or the selection and sequencing of
contents and courses may open up incommensurable paradigmatic questions that
could be avoided as long as each faculty member stayed within the confines of
his/her course.

With a trend to more interdisciplinary study programmes, the challenges outlined
above become even more pronounced as the chance of having faculty across the
whole spectrum of disciplinary cultures within one programmes becomes higher.
Furthermore, the strong emphasis on employers’ demands when defining pro-
gramme-level learning outcomes that has become apparent in some approaches to
implementing Bologna-conforming study structures exacerbates the apparent an-
tagonism between traditional discipline- and outcome-oriented approaches to pro-
gramme development. Such approaches may be perceived as a functionalist view
on HE (cf. ALLAIRE, & FIRSIROTU, 1984), as the design of study programmes
is driven rather by a reaction to externally generated demands than by research
driven ideas and innovations from inside the academia (LIESSMANN, 2006;
TEICHLER, 2000).
The next section discusses what the outlined challenges of academic contexts mean
for the role of educational developers assuming the task of implementing and fur-
ther developing outcome-oriented study programmes.
4 The role of educational developers: Bringing
outcome-oriented programmes to life
Reflecting on the relation between disciplinary culture and the implementation of
outcome-oriented study programmes, it becomes apparent why faculty often find it
hard to participate in processes of programme development. As a consequence, the
major task for educational is to reconcile the faculty’s discipline-focused work
identity with programme-level objectives that, at least partly, lie beyond the scope
of each faculty member’s discipline. Such reconciliation should ultimately empow-
er faculty to feel in charge of their programme and it requires a moderation process
on two different levels: As a first step, it is important to have the faculty buy in to
the normative framework of the study programme, most importantly to the intend-
ed learning outcomes but also to other aspects such as the targeted population of
incoming students or potential employers to be addressed. JENERT (2011, 2012a)
calls this programmatic consensus the “Programme Leadership”. As a second step,
the ideal conception of the programme has yet to be realized at the “Programme
Ownership” level. The term ownership implies that all relevant actors – programme
management, faculty, and students – should understand the programme’s concep-
tion, and align their teaching-related activities in order to actualize the normative
guidelines.
4.1 Programme Leadership: Balancing multiple stakeholders to
develop a sustainable conception of a study programme
Shifting from input-focused to outcome-oriented planning complicates the process
of programme development as it requires higher engagement from more stakehold-
ers than before: Usually, learning outcomes will try to meet the demands of various
goal systems – academic disciplines, the educational mission of the HEI, potential
employers, and society – which have to be integrated by addressing different
stakeholders.

Recent years have seen a strong tendency to identify employers’ demands in order
to meet the needs of the labour market when designing study programmes
(HARVEY, 2000). While employers certainly are relevant stakeholders, it is neces-
sary to balance their demands with the perspectives of other stakeholders. Recur-
ring to the importance of disciplinary cultures, it is crucial to empower faculty to
negotiate and interpret how external expectations and requirements towards a study
programme should be dealt with. In fact, when not presented in the form of a dog-
ma, educational developers can use external demands effectively as a starting point
for discussing programme design among the faculty.
Another party relevant for this negotiation process are the students: Their interest
for a programme depends on how relevant they regard the learning outcomes for
their personal development. Yet, this does not imply to treat students as customers
and profile study programmes primarily to meet students’ career expectations
(REINMANN, & JENERT, 2011). How faculty perceive themselves in relation to
students’ expectations and demands is also an element to be defined on the pro-
gramme leadership level.
Finally, the management board or various committees within the university, de-
partments etc. may be important stakeholders for programme design: Institutional
expectations towards a programme could address economic factors, e. g. in order to
attract a certain number of students within a given amount of resources or to con-
tribute to a HEI’s reputation by getting accreditations, performing well in rankings
etc. Political issues can be another factor influencing programme design, e. g. when
overlaps between programmes should be avoided or faculty of specific subjects
need to be included in order to fulfil their teaching loads.
Balancing different stakeholders’ expectations does not mean to weigh each re-
quirement equally: Some programmes may consciously choose to focus on re-
search or to take a critical stance towards current economic trends. In this case,
potential employers may not be defined in terms of private market corporates but
rather as the academia or the public sector. Still during programme design, it is
important to consider all the relevant stakeholders and assume a clear position. For
educational developers responsible for programme implementation, actively mod-
erating such a balancing act may be extremely challenging. They have to be able to
understand the perspectives of different academic disciplines involved in the pro-
cess, recognize underlying causes in case of conflicting opinions, and propose
compromises accordingly. Furthermore, in order to moderate such negotiations, a
certain level of authority and confidence in academic environments is also neces-
sary (JENERT, 2012b; JENERT, & BRAHM, 2010).
4.2 Programme Ownership: Empowering faculty to create a
desirable teaching and learning culture
A question that has rarely been tackled so far is how educational developers, re-
spectively programme managers can manage interaction among faculty in a way to
create a teaching and learning culture that supports students in attaining previously
defined programme-level outcomes. Even having well-described programme-level
outcomes accepted by the faculty, this does not automatically lead to consistency

among the individual courses. Without integrative elements connecting the various
learning activities throughout a programme and linking them to the outcomes, stu-
dents may still experience their studies as a more or less eclectic compilation of
rather unrelated courses (JENERT, 2011). To develop a programme culture in
which the students experience their courses to be interrelated and purposefully
linked to superordinate outcomes (cf. AINELEY, 2008) communication needs to
be well aligned among faculty. Contradicting information may unsettle students
and contribute to the development of “hidden curricula” (JENERT, 2011). This
requires a great amount of mutual information among the teaching faculty which
can be supported by “classical” measures such as periodical curriculum confer-
ences. Other curriculum-embedded measures include team teaching, or courses
involving faculty from various disciplines or research-based learning (HUBER,
2009). Ultimately, the goal is to develop the teaching faculty into a “curriculum
community” (HUBBAL, & GOLD, 2007) that assumes responsibility for shaping a
coherent educational experience for students.
All in all, for outcome-oriented programmes to come to life, educational develop-
ers as well as programme managers need to develop a thorough understanding of
their faculty’s various disciplinary backgrounds and their academic work. Pedagog-
ic models (e. g. the process of defining competencies as learning outcomes) need to
be introduced in ways that do not leave academics as mere providers of solutions to
externally defined demands. Rather, they need to be empowered to negotiate and
reinterpret students’ competencies from the background of their own research dis-
cipline.
5 Conclusion: Anchoring outcome-oriented
programmes in the academia
Programme reforms in the wake of Bologna have not had the best press so far and
criticism has been especially loud from within the academia (SCHULTHEIS,
COUSIN, & ROCA I ESCODA, 2008; TERHART, 2005). Analysing the typical
features of academic culture and relating it to the logic of outcome-oriented pro-
gramme design allows for a more thorough understanding of why outcome orienta-
tion goes way beyond mere structural adaptations but requires academic faculty to
engage in discourses that touch upon features of their disciplinary cultures and their
work identities.
If faculty remain unengaged or resistant to programme development processes,
educational developers should carefully reconsider how they present pedagogical
concepts and models and where such concepts could be perceived as devaluing the
contribution of the academia and research to HE. To master this challenge, educa-
tional developers as well as programme managers should not only be proficient in
education but also know and understand the work realities (e. g. the modes of re-
search and career paths) of the academics that make up their programme’s faculty.

6 References
Aineley, P. (2008). The varieties of student experience – an open research
question and some ways to answer it. Studies in Higher Education, 33(5), 615-624.
Allaire, Y., & Firsirotu, M. E. (1984). Theories of Organizational Culture.
Organization Studies, 5(3), 193-226.
Bargel, T. (1988). Wieviele Kulturen hat die Universität? Ein Vergleich der Rollen-
und Arbeitskultur in vierzig Einzelfächern Hefte zur Bildungs- und
Hochschulforschung. Konstanz: Arbeitsgruppe Hochschulforschung.
Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning – a new paradigm for
under-graduate education. Change, 27(6 ), 12-25.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual
Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines (2
nd
ed.). Buckingham: The Society for
Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Betts, M., & Smith, R. (1995). Developing the Credit-based Modular Curriculum in
Higher Education: Challenges, Choice, and Change. London: Routledge Falmer.
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for Quality Learning at University (2
nd
ed.).
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1971). Die Illusion der Chancengleichheit.
Stuttgart: Klett.
Brahm, T., & Jenert, T. (2013). Herausforderungen der Kompetenzorientierung in
der Studienprogrammentwicklung. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 1(8), 7-14.
Burke, J. (1995). Outcomes, Learning, and the curriculum: Implications for NVQs,
GNVQs and other qualifications. London: Routledge Falmer.
Entwistle, N., McCune, V., & Scheja, M. (2006). Student learning in context:
Understanding the phenomenon and the person. In L. Verschaffel, F. Dochy, M.
Boekaerts, & S. Vosniadou (Eds.), Instructional psychology: Past, present and
future trends. Sixteen Essays in Honor of Erik De Corte (pp. 131-148). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Frank, A. (1990). Hochschulsozialisation und akademischer Habitus: Eine
Untersuchung am Beispiel der Disziplinen Biologie und Psychologie. Weinheim:
Deutscher Studien Verlag.
Harper, B. J., & Lattuca, L. R. (2010). Tightening Curricular Connections: CQI
and Effective Curriculum Planning. Research in Higher Education, 51(6), 505-527.
Harvey, L. (2000). New Realities: The Relation between Higher Education and
Employment. Tertiary Education and Management, 6(1), 2-17.
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in educationally purposeful
activities: The influences of student and institutional characteristics. Research in
Higher Education, 43(5), 555-575.
Hubbal, H., & Burt, H. (2004). An integrated approach to developing and
implementing learning-centred curricula. International Journal for Academic
Development, 9(1), 51-65.
Hubbal, H., & Gold, N. (2007). The Scholarship of Curriculum Practice and
Undergraduate Program Reform: Integrating Theory into Practice. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 112, 5-14.

Hubbal, H., Gold, N., Nighty, J., & Britnell, J. (2007 ). Supporting the
Implementation of Externally Generated Learning Outcomes and Learning-
Centered Curriculum Development: An Integrated Framework. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 112, 93-105.
Huber, L. (2009). Warum Forschendes Lernen nötig und möglich ist. In L. Huber,
J. Hellmer, & F. Schneider (Eds.), Forschendes Lernen im Studium. Aktuelle
Konzepte und Erfahrungen (pp. 9-35). Bielefeld: UniversitätsVerlagWebler.
Huber, L., & Portele, G. (1983). Die Hochschullehrer. In L. Huber (Ed.),
Ausbildung und Sozialisation in der Hochschule (pp. 193-218). Stuttgart: Ernst
Klett.
Jenert, T. (2011). Studienprogramme als didaktische Gestaltungs- und
Untersuchungseinheit: Theoretische Grundlegung und empirische Analyse. St.
Gallen: Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen. Retrieved March 9, 2014, from
http://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/Publikationen/209857.
Jenert, T. (2012a). Programmgestaltung als professionelle Aufgabe der
Hochschulentwicklung: Gestaltungsmodell und Fallstudie. In T. Brinker, & P.
Tremp (Eds.), Einführung in die Studiengangsentwicklung (pp. 27-44). Bielefeld:
Bertelsmann wbv.
Jenert, T. (2012b). Service – Forscher – Change Agents?! Rollen und Strategien
einer gestaltungsorientierten Hochschulentwicklung: Keynote-Vortrag im Rahmen
des Jungen Forums Hochschul- und Mediendidaktik.
Jenert, T., & Brahm, T. (2010). Blended Professionals als Akteure einer
institutionsweiten Hochschulentwicklung. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung,
4(5), 124-145.
Jenert, T., Zellweger, F., Dommen, J., & Gebhardt, A. (2009). Lernkulturen an
Hochschulen: Theoretische Überlegungen zur Betrachtung studentischen Lernens
unter individueller, pädagogischer und organisationaler Perspektive. St. Gallen:
Universität St. Gallen, Institut für Wirtschaftspädagogik.
Jenkins, A., & Walker, L. (1994). Developing Student Capabilities through
Modular Courses. London: Kogan Page.
Keller, H.-J. (2006). Die Modularisierung und der Bologna-Prozess. Beiträge zur
Lehrerbildung, 24, 303-314.
Kreckel, R. (2006). Universitätskulturen. In R. Fikentscher (Ed.), Europäische
Gruppenkulturen. Familie, Freizeit, Rituale (pp. 99-120). Halle: mdv Mitteldeutscher
Verlag.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., et al. (2005). Student success in
College: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Liebau, E., & Huber, L. (1985). Die Kulturen der Fächer. Neue Sammlung, 25(3),
314-339.
Liessmann, K. P. (2006). Theorie der Unbildung. Die Irrtümer der
Wissensgesellschaft. Wien: Zsolnay.
Marian, F. (2007). Kompetenzorientierte Planung eines Curriculums:
Doktoratsprogramm für Forschung in komplementärer Medizin. In S. Wehr, & H.
Ertel (Eds.), Aufbruch in der Hochschullehre: Kompetenzen und Lernende im
Zentrum (pp. 13-30). Bern: Haupt.

Mittelstrass, J. (1991). Hochschulkultur. In F. W. Busch, & H. Havekost (Eds.),
Oldenburger Universitätsreden: Ansprachen, Aufsätze, Vorträge (pp. 7-34).
Oldenburg: bis, Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.
Multrus, F. (2005). Identifizierung von Fachkulturen über Studierende deutscher
Hochschulen: Ergebnisse auf der Basis des Studierendensurveys vom WS
2000/01. Hefte zur Bildungs- und Hochschulforschung. Retrieved September 12,
2009, from http://www.uni-konstanz.de/soziologie/ag-
hoc/publikationen/PublikatBerichte/Heft45_IdentifizierungFachkulturen.pdf.
Reinmann, G., & Jenert, T. (2011). Studierendenorientierung: Wege und Irrwege
eines Begriffs mit vielen Facetten. Zeitschrift für Hochschulentwicklung, 2(6), 106-
122.
Schaper, N., Schlömer, T., & Paechter, M. (2013). Editorial: Kompetenzen,
Kompetenzorientierung und Employability in der Hochschule. Zeitschrift für
Hochschulentwicklung, 7(4), I-V.
Schultheis, F., Cousin, P.-F., & Roca i Escoda, M. (2008). Humboldts Alptraum:
Der Bologna-Prozess und seine Folgen. Konstanz: UVK.
Teichler, U. (2000). New Perspectives of the Relationship between Higher
Education and Employment. Tertiary Education and Management, 6, 79-92.
Terhart, E. (2005). Die Lehre in Zeiten der Modularisierung. Zeischrift für
Pädagogik (50. Beiheft), 87-102.
Webler, W.-D. (2005). Modellhafter Aufbau moderner Studiengänge: Chancen von
Bachelor- und Masterstudiengängen. In U. von Holdt, & C. Stange (Eds.),
Qualitative Aspekte von Leistungspunkten: Chancen von Bachelor- und
Masterstudiengängen (pp. 17-39). Bielefeld: UVW.
Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.
Author
Dr. Tobias JENERT  Universität St. Gallen, Institut für
Wirtschaftspädagogik  Dufourstrasse 40a, CH-9000 St.Gallen
www.hochschulentwicklung.ch, www.iwp.unisg.ch
tobias.jenert@unisg.ch

Jenert Studienprogrammentwicklung

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Jenert Studienprogrammentwicklung

More from hse_unisg

Recently uploaded

Jenert Studienprogrammentwicklung